Ohio History Journal

THE MIAMI CANAL

 

 

BY JOHN J. GEORGE, JR.

Much of the politics and planning of the early

decades of the nineteenth century centered around in-

ternal improvements, a topic made possible and popular

by the expansion of the West. This expansion and

development the tidewater political leader recognized;

the representative of the frontier capitalized it. Fruit-

less appeals for aid were made to a central government

whose executive, laboring under strict construction, de-

nied the constitutionality of spending federal money for

"state" purposes. The third decade lifted the constitu-

tional ban, and ushered in a program of internal im-

provement, one of whose important phases, construc-

tion of canals, received its impetus and reached its

zenith in the period of 1825-50. Many states engaged

in canal construction: New York completed the Erie

in 1825, the same year Pennsylvania began the Penn-

sylvania system of alternate sections of tramway and

canal, Virginia and Maryland agreed to build the Ches-

apeake and Ohio Canal, the projects of Illinois were

begun, and the elaborate scheme laid out by Indiana.1

The purpose of this paper is to deal with the Miami

Canal, Cincinnati to Defiance, a port of the canal pro-

gram of Ohio, the first western state to launch her

canal program and the only one to complete it.² Rea-

 

1 Paxson, F. L., History of the American Frontier, 258-67.

2 Andrews, Israel D., Report on Colonial and Lake Trade, (1852), 354.

(92)

• 1
 

The Miami Canal.              93

sons for building the canal, progress of canal construc-

tion, financing the construction of the canal, its admin-

istrative management, its operation, decline, and aban-

donment, and some results and significance of the canal

will be treated in turn.

 

REASONS FOR BUILDING THE MIAMI CANAL

In an act of the Ohio legislature of 1822 looking to

the survey of probable routes for canals connecting

the Ohio river with Lake Erie, we find the general

reason for the construction of the Miami Canal: Pro-

motion of the agricultural, manufacturing and commer-

cial interests of the "good people" of Ohio, and for

uniting the more distant parts of the United States that

the bonds of political union might be strengthened

thereby.³ Specific reasons are to be found in the con-

dition of Ohio in the early twenties: The desire to se-

cure markets for the produce, greatly agricultural, of

the interior region; "to get the cheapest access to the

best markets or to a choice of markets" and thereby

protect the interests of the producer by preventing a

monopoly on the part of any one market;4 to connect

the interior to the Ohio River, an important line of trade

from Pittsburgh to the Mississippi, thereby reaching

Cincinnati, a promising town of more than nine thou-

sand inhabitants in 1820;5 to tap on the north the 1500-

mile6 water route from Great Lakes to New York City,

which route was opened up by the completion of the

Erie Canal in 1825. Some idea of the importance of

3 Ohio Laws, 1821-22, 31.

4 Israel D. Andrews, Report on Colonial and Lake Trade (1852), 34.

5 United States Census, 1820, 35.

6 Andrews, 354.

• 2
 

94       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

this trade route can be gathered from the lake traffic

at Buffalo following the opening of this route: Flour

and grain received at Buffalo by lake in 1836 totaled

1,239,351 bushels; in ten years this had mounted to

more than 13 million bushels.⁷ That this water route

would prove a veritable channel of grain and grain

products from the west to the east was early divined

by the states Indiana, Illinois and Ohio.    Especially

eager was Ohio to connect with these northern and

southern trade routes her own agricultural areas of the

interior. Her eagerness found expression in the pro-

jecting and completing of not only the Miami Canal

from Cincinnati to Defiance but also in building the

Ohio and Erie Canal from Portsmouth to Cleveland.

Add to these reasons the fact that the National Road,

the initial step in good roads in Ohio, did not enter Ohio

until five months after the Miami Canal was author-

ized,⁸ and the fact that there was not a mile of railroad

in operation in Ohio until ten years9 after the authori-

zation of the canal, and we have the essential reasons

-- the necessity -- for the construction of the canal.

PROGRESS OF CANAL CONSTRUCTION

The beginning of the work of constructing the canal

was considered a momentous occasion; the ceremony of

breaking ground at Main Street, Cincinnati, July 21,

1825, was witnessed by the Governor of Ohio, and by

 

7 Preliminary Report of Inland Waterways Commission, (1908), 230.

8 Charles R. Morris, Internal Improvements in Ohio, 1825-50, in Amer-

ican Historical Association Papers, III, 1889, 352; Ohio Laws, 1824-5,

58-9. Morris' article is an excellent one, and I have drawn from it freely,

especially in regard to the financing of the canal.

9 Mitchell's Compendium of Internal Improvements in the United States

(1835), 71-72.

• 3
 

The Miami Canal.               95

 

Governor DeWitt Clinton, of New York, who had just

witnessed the completion of the Erie Canal in his own

state.10 By midsummer 1827, the canal was completed

as far as Miami feeder, and water was turned into the

section thus completed, on July 1, 1827. The new and

unsettled banks, however, under pressure of the volume

of water turned in, caved in in many places and a great

deal of filling up resulted.  Despite this obstacle, on

November 28, 1827, three boatloads of curious, enthusi-

astic spectators moved along up the canal at three miles

an hour as far as Middletown.11  The next year floods

hampered the construction, but before the end of 1828

the whole line from Cincinnati to Dayton, a distance of

66 miles, was completed.12 The original estimate of the

cost of the first 44 miles was $474,000; it is remarkable

to note that it actually cost $469,00013 or $5,000 less

than the original estimate! The total cost of the Cin-

cinnati-Dayton Division was slightly above one million

dollars.14

In January, 1829,15 the Board of Canal Commission-

ers in a report on the survey of the proposed extension

to Junction pointed out that it would be practically im-

possible to use water from the Mad and Miami Rivers

farther north than Piqua; that beyond this point water

for the canal would have to be supplied by reservoirs.

The board estimated the cost of the canal from Dayton

 

10 Morris, 356.

11 Annual Report of Canal Commissioners, in Senate Journal, 1827-8,

170-173.

12 Ibid, in Senate Journal, 1828-9, 186-190.

13 Ibid, in Senate Journal, 1827-28, 170-74.

14 Morris, 379.

15 Senate Journal, 1828-29, 196-198.

• 4
 

96       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

to Junction, exclusive of reservoirs at $2,874,432. This

report stimulated legislative action  authorizing the

board to employ engineers and to make surveys for the

canal to junction, the cost of surveys to be paid from

proceeds of sale of lands granted by Congress May 24,

1828; but the cost of survey was not to exceed $1500.16

Thus began the work on the Dayton-Junction Division.

Some years were much more favorable to canal con-

struction than were others. Lack of laborers, illness

among the laborers (perhaps attributable to the un-

healthful conditions along the line of canal work) se-

riously hampered the work; but most of all, the rainy

season, lasting for six weeks in the summer of 1835,

checked the progress. The report of the Canal Com-

missioners in 1836 characterized this "spell" as being

"the most unfavorable season in the history of public

works in Ohio."¹⁷ The next year canal work suffered

from lack of laborers because Indiana public works

were offering higher wages.18

In some places the canal construction necessitated

the damming of streams; such produced overflows on

surrounding land and this in turn gave rise to claims

for damages on part of injured parties, and to general

unhealthful conditions for the inhabitants.19

In spite of the obstacles slowing down the work, the

canal was completed to Piqua by 1840, a distance of

some 40 miles from Dayton.²⁰  Success of the Miami

16 Ohio Laws, 1829-30, 16. Private claims for damage to property be-

came numerous in the late twenties. See Senate Journal, 1836-7, 668-75.

17 See House Journal, 1836-7, 668-75.

18 Annual Report of Board of Public Works (Ohio), 1836.

19 Report of House Committee on Canals, Jan. 24, 1836, in House

Journal, 1836-7, 274-75.

20 David H. Burr, Map of Ohio, 1840.

• 5
 

The Miami Canal.                97

 

Canal depended, of course, on the completion of the line

to Junction, and this point is emphasized by the auditor

in his report for 1842.21 In referring to the completion

of the Wabash and Erie Canal that year, he urges that

every effort be put forth to complete the Miami Canal

to Junction at the earliest possible moment. He adds

reason to his plea by citing that the state has $2,500,000

invested in the Miami Canal already, the annual interest

amounting to $150,000. This plea bore fruit the next

year in the form of a legislative appropriation of $600,-

000 for completing the canal.22

As had been predicted by the Canal Commissioners,

the operation of the canal in the northern part of the

state required extensive reservoirs, four largest of

which included 280,000 acres, and cost $1,222,000.23

The Miami Canal was completed to Junction in

1846,24 thus joining the Wabash and Erie Canal which

extended from Evansville, Indiana, by way of Terre

Haute, and Fort Wayne, to Toledo, Ohio. Thus the

Miami Canal put the western interior of Ohio in touch

with the trade on the Ohio river, the great trade route

between Pittsburgh and Louisville; in touch with the

trade line to northern, central and southern Indiana,

and in touch with the great trade route from Chicago to

New York.

 

21 Annual Report of Auditor, 1842-3, in Ohio Legislative Documents,

Doc. 7, 10.

22 Annual Report of Treasurer, 1842-3, in Ohio Legislative Documents,

Doc. 7, 10.

23 Annual Report of Board of Public Works, 1888, in Ohio Executive

Documents, 1086. Usable maps showing the location of the Commis-

sioners, 1905.

24 Annual Report of Board of Public Works in Ohio Legislative Docu-

ments, 1846-7, Doc. 31, 389.

Vol. XXXVI--7.

• 6
 

98       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

When we consider the great obstacles to be over-

come in this undertaking, floods, shortage of labor, the

necessity for an extensive reservoir system, the ever-

increasing burden of interest on the debt already con-

tracted, and the ever-present difficulty of getting money

to carry on the construction, we can more understand-

ingly appreciate Ohio's achievements in completing the

Miami.

 

FINANCING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CANAL

Financing of the construction of the Miami Canal

was the biggest problem involved. The basic law of

182525 established a Canal Fund to consist of contribu-

tions and donations of individuals, of appropriations

which should be made from time to time from money

in the state treasury, of money from the sales of canal

stocks (which were to be free from taxation),²⁶ and of

money from taxes named in the Act27 for the purpose

of paying the interest on the stocks, (the rate of interest

not to exceed 6 per cent.)28 Floating the first loans thus

provided for was made through the Manhattan Bank of

New York, which also transferred the interest to the

stockholders. For this service Ohio paid the bank

$2,000. Loans would be deposited in the bank to the

credit of Ohio, and as needed transferred to the local

banks in Ohio as the Board of Canal Fund Commission-

ers (provided for in the basic act) should require.²⁹

The canal fund commissioners were by the basic act

 

25 Ohio Laws, 1824-5, 50-58.

26 Ibid. Sec. 5.

27 Ibid. Sec. 3.

28 Ibid. Sec. 4.

29 Morris, 366.

• 7
 

The Miami Canal.               99

 

authorized to borrow on the credit of the state $400,000

for 1825, and not more than $600,000 during any suc-

ceeding year while canal construction was in progress.30

The state legislature at the same time pledged $40,000

of the money in Treasury, and provided for certain

amounts to be transferred from yearly revenues to the

Canal Fund. Further, all money from tolls and water

rents arising from any part of the canal as soon as

opened was to be added to the Canal Fund.³¹ All money

belonging to the Canal Fund was to be paid into the

state treasury, kept as a separate account, and paid out

in same manner as other state money.³² Premiums on

sales of stock and interest on deposits of state money

with Manhattan Bank during the period 1826-38

amounted to $395,000.³³ Another source of money,

used even before the canal was completed to Dayton,

was school funds, money arising from lands set aside

for educational purposes in the counties. Borrowing

from this source for the construction of canals resulted

in the creation of a huge debt.³⁴ Sale of school lands

to raise money for canal construction was resorted to,

and in this way between 1827 and 1848 the state rolled

up a debt of more than $1,500,000 to the counties.³⁵

When all these sources failed to produce sufficient

money, resort was had to state special property tax for

canal construction. The legislative act left in the hands

of the state auditor the determining of what the rate of

30 Ohio Laws, 1824-5, 50-58, Sec. 4.

31 Ibid. Sec. 5; Morris gives a succinct analysis of the provisions of the

act relative to finance, 354.

32 Ibid. Sec. 6.

33 Morris, 366.

³⁴ Ibid. 363.

35 Ibid. 365.

• 8
 

100      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

this special property tax should be. When he had de-

cided the amount necessary, he notified the county

auditors of the rate to be assessed and collected, and

these officials proceeded to get the money accordingly.³⁶

This was an extreme procedure: legislative delegation

of authority to determine tax rate to an executive offi-

cial! In the period 1826 the state property tax includ-

ing the special tax for canals practically doubled, being

1.7 mills in 1826 and 3.2 mills in 1833.37 Since Ohio

was chiefly agricultural at this time, the canal tax "fell

heaviest on the farmer", but he was given some relief

in the revaluation scheme of 1835.

Some idea of the rates of toll can be gathered from

the auditor's report of 1843.³⁹ A barrel of salt from

Cleveland to Portsmouth by the Ohio canal, a distance

of 309 miles cost 21 cents transportation; the transpor-

tation of the same article from Portsmouth to Nelson-

ville on the Hocking Canal, a distance of 152 miles,

cost 26 cents. Passenger fare on the Miami Canal was

5 cents per passenger-mile. At this time the auditor

urged a revision of the freight toll rates so as to bring

about an equalization among the various canals of the

state. Even here before 1850 we have a problem not

different from the competing rates and "long-short

haul" problems of the railroads in the period after 1875.

Receipts for the first year of operation of the first

44 miles of the Miami Canal totaled $8,000.40 Receipts

36 Ohio Laws, 1824-5, 55.

37 Morris, 367.

38 Ibid. 377.

39 Annual Report of the Auditor, 1842-3, in Ohio Legislative Documents,

Doc. 3, 35.

40 Annual Report of Canal Commissioners, 1828-9 in Senate Journal,

1828-9, 186-90.

• 9
 

The Miami Canal.               101

 

for the year 1840 were noticeably favorable: The net

profits from tolls this year showed more than a six per

cent return on the cost of canal construction to date.⁴¹

The canal fund received this profit heartily. The fund

suffered in 1842 by the fact that canal gross receipts

fell $12,000 short of the figures for the preceding

year.⁴²  In 1845 the canal receipts were only $53,000;

but the year the Miami Canal was completed to Junc-

tion, the receipts on the whole line shot up to $115,000.43

This sudden rise served as an encouragement to the

difficult problem of financing the canal construction.⁴⁴

The value of presenting these figures lies only in the

fact that the receipts from canal operation served only

as an insignificant item in the work of extending and

making possible the canal construction to Junction. We

now turn to sketch the share the United States Govern-

ment had in the project. Congress did not come to the

rescue until the Miami Canal was practically completed

to Dayton. By that time Congress saw that Ohio

"meant business", and that the canal was to prove a

success. In May, 1828, Congress granted to Ohio as

an aid to the extension of the Miami Canal from Day-

ton to Junction, one-half of five sections width on each

side of the proposed canal.⁴⁵ This grant totaled 438,301

acres.⁴⁶ Not without condition did Congress grant this

land to Ohio. The canal when completed should be for-

ever open to the use of the Federal Government free

41  Note, Index to Ohio Documents, 397.

42 Annual Report of Auditor, 1842-3, in Ohio Legislative Documents,

Doc. 3, 25.

43 Annual Report, N. Y. State Engineer, 1905, II, 1402.

44 Morris, p. 376.

45 U. S. Statutes at Large, 1824-35, 305.

⁴⁶ Land Grants Made by Congress, 1908, 24.

• 10
 

102       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

from tolls on its goods and agents passing through.⁴⁷

The terms of the grant allowed Ohio five years in which

to begin the extension of the canal and 20 years to com-

plete it to Junction.

In the same year as the above grant was made for

construction of Miami Canal, Congress granted Ohio

500,000 acres as an aid to the construction of canals in

general; the Miami Canal was entitled to a share in this

grant.⁴⁸

How were these lands converted into money usable

in canal construction? The act of Ohio⁴⁹ relative to

land sales gives us a fair idea of the progress. It pro-

vided:

1. Governor to furnish to the land offices maps of the

lands sold and to be sold.

2. Governor to issue a proclamation stating date of sale

of canal lands, area in which located, and terms of sale.

3. Land to be sold in tracts not larger than half-sections to

highest bidder for cash, gold or silver coin, bank notes,

or state bonds.

4. Minimum price of $2.50 an acre.

5. Sections located in certain ranges and reserved as state

property to be sold at not less than $4 an acre.

6. No registrar of laws or receiver of public money from

land sales to purchase the lands offered.

7. Lands sold to be taxable from day of sale.

Publication of definite information on sales of land,

and the prevention of "official" speculation were aimed

at by this act; but more significant are the provisions

taken over from existing land laws of Congress, such

features as the "range", the section idea (although to

be sold in half-sections, the idea of the section was pres-

 

47 U. S. Statutes at Large, 1824-35, 305-6.

48 Ibid.

49 Ohio Laws, 1841-2, 72.

• 11
 

The Miami Canal.               103

 

ent); the question of reserves, and a minimum price.

A typical land sale was that held at Piqua October 22,

1833. A portion of the alternate sections granted the

State by Congress were sold at public auction, netting

the State more than $30,000. This helped in the work

of canal extension.50 Not all the land of the Miami Ca-

nal was disposed of before the canal was completed to

Junction; for in 1894-98 some $90,000 worth was sold

for railroad purposes.51

The total cost of the Miami Canal from Cincinnati

to Dayton, 66 miles, was $1,020,000; from Dayton to

Junction, $3,168,965; grand total for the canal, 189

miles, $4,197,965.52  Despite the authorization of the

canal commissioners to seize and use property and ma-

terials necessary for construction of the canal,53 they

did not do so to any marked extent, the result being that

the dealers in materials charged higher figures than

market price, the state being burdened thus by a greater

construction cost.54 We can not determine how much

of the cost of canal construction thus arose. It seems

that the finances of the canal were well managed from

1825-33, but the rigid economy and honest management

of that period was "entirely lost sight of from 1837 to

the completion of the Public Works, in 1845."55

Two essential points to be noted in financing of the

 

50 Annual Message of Governor Lucas, Dec. 2, 1834, in Reports and

Messages to General Assembly, 1834, 5.

51 Annual Report of Ohio Canal Commissioners, 1905, 51.

52 Morris, tables on page 379.

53 Supra. 7.

54 Morris, 358.

55 Annual Report of Auditor, 1844-5 in Ohio Legislative Documents,

Doc. No. 20, 273. A fearless attack on what Auditor Brough considers

corruption in office.

• 12
 

104      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

canal are, first, that there were two general sources on

which to draw, state, and federal; the former consist-

ing of contributions and donations by individuals, state

appropriations, sale of bonds, interests on deposits, pre-

miums on sales of stock, loans from school funds, and

money from the special property tax; from the latter,

money from the sale of lands generously granted by

Congress. Secondly, that for a period the finances were

well managed, but in the later period of canal construc-

tion inefficiency and extravagance were far too glaring.

 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT OF THE CANAL

In the act of February 4, 1825, the basic law in the

state canalization program for sixty years, provision is

made for the administration of the canal. This was

intrusted to a board of canal commissioners (the con-

tinuance of a like board dating from about 1822 but en-

larged by Act of 1825) of seven members chosen by

joint resolution of the legislature to hold office during

good behavior and removable by the appointing author-

ity. That there was a determination to keep the com-

mission under the watch of the legislature is evidenced

in designation (section 4) of the presiding officer of the

Senate as a member of the board. To this board were

given the duties of letting contracts for work and for

supplies, the selection of engineers, draftsmen, collect-

ors of tolls, and other workers necessary for the opera-

tion of the undertaking.⁵⁶ Logically enough the duties

of the canal commissioners were extended as the work

progressed and new exigencies arose. With the open-

 

56 Ohio Laws, 1824-5, 50-51. The same act (p. 53) creates a finance

board known as Commissioners of the Canal Fund.

• 13
 

The Miami Canal.              105

 

ing of the canal to Dayton, in 183057 the board was

authorized to issue regulations governing the navigation

of the canal; it was empowered to sell surplus water

and lands granted to or purchased by the State,58 to pur-

chase additional water power⁵⁹; to appoint appraisers

to assess damages to private property occasioned by the

construction of the canal,⁵⁹ and to change public roads

where such is necessary to the construction of the

canal.⁶⁰ In 1832 the board was authorized to enter

upon, seize, and use any lands, streams or materials

necessary to the construction of the canal,⁶¹ compensa-

tion to be determined by a group of five disinterested

parties appointed by the commissioners, the amount of

damages allowed by the board of five appraisers being

entered in the Canal Commissioners' record, and paid

to the party aggrieved.⁶² The independent board of

canal commissioners did not give satisfaction,⁶³ and by

act of March 16, 1838, the Board of Canal Commis-

sioners was abolished and the management of the canal

transferred to the Board of Public Works, which had

general administrative control of the whole program of

state internal improvements. This board of public

works consisted of five members chosen by joint reso-

lution of the legislature, overlapping term, and remov-

able by the legislature. Mismanagement, however, did

not cease with this change in administration for we

 

57 Ohio Laws, 1829-30, 377.

58 Ibid., 380.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 398.

59a Ibid., 376.

60 Ibid., 375.

61 Ohio Laws, 1831-32, 17-18.

62 Ohio Laws, 1824-25, 56-7.

63 Morris, 358.

• 14
 

106       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

have a brave attempt at airing the evils under the new

system voiced in the report of the State Auditor, John

Brough, in 1843. He says there are too many retainers

in the canal personnel, too much favoritism shown, too

little honesty, and a crying need for both honesty and

rigid economy in canal administration. He opposes the

continuance of sinecures, and recommends that the hand

of the law be heavily laid on the evildoers.64 To the

Board of Public Works were transferred, by the Act of

March 16, 1838, the functions of the Canal Commis-

sioners, and the board was further authorized to ap-

point as acting commissioners officials to manage each

phase of the internal improvements program as it

should see fit; and so it happens that there was a canal

commission after 1839 but it was chosen by, and re-

sponsible to the Board of Public Works, in reality a

part of it.⁶⁵ Thus the administration of the Miami

Canal after 1839 was simply this: Direct administra-

tion by acting canal commissioners appointed and re-

movable by the Board of Public Works, which in turn

was the creature of and responsible to the State Legis-

lature.  Perhaps the most significant feature of the

change in 1838 was to correlate the work of canal con-

struction with the whole state program of internal im-

provements.66

 

64 Annual Report of Auditor, 1843, in Ohio Legislative Documents,

Document No. 6, 38-9. In the same year the legislature ordered an ex-

amination into the conduct of canal commissioners, and authorized the

governor to prosecute the tardy and dishonest officials if such were found.

See Ohio Laws, 1842-3, 54-7.

65 The annual reports of the Board of Public Works furnish the most

usable material on the operation of the Miami Canal after 1838.

66 Ohio Laws, 1838-9, 45-59, for provisions of the 183A Act,

• 15
 

The Miami Canal.               107

 

 

OPERATION, DECLINE AND ABANDONMENT OF THE

CANAL

During even the first years of its full-fledged ex-

istence the Miami Canal suffered from obstacles to its

operation. Freezes kept navigation at a standstill for

long periods of time, once for seven weeks.67 Making

of repairs, and drawing of the water to remove accumu-

lated mud and sand seriously hampered the navigation.68

Later the stream dredger replaced manual labor in

cleaning the canal and thus was done away with the

necessity for drawing off the water.

What were the chief articles of transport on the

Miami Canal? An examination of the records of the

goods received by the Miami and Erie Canal at Cincin-

nati and Junction gives a satisfactory answer. These

show that in 1851 Cincinnati was receiving by the

Miami Canal great quantities of ice, flour, whiskey,

corn, oats, pork and bacon, sugar, wood, paper, lumber,

and iron.⁶⁹ At Junction the chief articles received by

the Miami and Erie were coffee, sugar, laths, and lum-

ber.⁷⁰ Most of these articles may be assumed to be

native products of the western interior of Ohio.

The receipts of the Miami and Erie Canal show a

steady climb from 1846 to 1851.71 Using receipts as an

index to canal operation, we find the peak reached in

 

67 From 1846 the records of the Miami Canal are merged with those of

the Ohio division of the Wabash and Erie Canal known as the Miami and

Erie Canal. Annual Report of Auditor, 1845-6, in Ohio Legislative Docu-

ments, 1846-7, Doc. 14, 164.

68 Legislative Documents, 1846-7, Doc. 3, 398-99.

⁶⁹ Ibid., 486.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 108-110.

71 Annual Report of Board of Public Works, 1888, 33.

• 16
 

108      Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

1851; further, that year shows a relatively lower

amount of expenditures on the canal than the few fol-

lowing years of fairly high receipts, and this serves as

additional justification for our considering the year

1851 as the zenith of the Miami and Erie Canal.⁷² In

that year the gross receipts of the canal were slightly

above $350,000; by 1860 the annual gross receipts had

dropped to less than half that amount.⁷³ In 1851 the

expenditures totaled some $175,000, shot up to $270,000

the next year, and gradually came down to about

$150,000 in 1860.

Seeing that the enterprise under state operation was

proving a financial failure, the state sought relief by a

legislative act of May 8, 1861, authorizing the Governor

and Treasurer to let to highest bidder the various parts

of the canal system. The lessee was to keep up repairs,

and pay the state the price of his bid in semi-annual

amounts. Leases were to run for ten years. In return

the lessee was to enjoy all tolls and rents from the canal

leased. Under this law, the Miami and Erie Canal was

leased in June, 1861, to a private company of six mem-

bers for the annual amount of $20,075.74 It appears

that the company filled its contract satisfactorily.⁷⁵ On

April 11, 1867, the legislature by joint resolution agreed

to extend the lease (which would expire June 1, 1871)

to June 1, 1881.76 A gleam of hope for the canals ap-

pears in the report of the Board of Public Works in

1863. Pointing to what New York State had done to

 

72 Ibid., 31.

73 Figures from Annual Report of Board of Public Works, 1888, 31-33.

74 Ibid., 1862, 3.

75 Ibid., also Annual Report, 1867, 4.

76 Ohio Laws, 1867, 330.

• 17
 

The Miami Canal.                  109

 

save her canals from the severe competition of the rail-

roads, the board recommends liberal expenditures to

enlarge the canal locks, and to improve the canal gener-

ally -- thus had New York succeeded. "Let Ohio go

and do likewise."77

But this exhortation could not save the canal system.

The situation became worse and in 1876 the state in

desperation began the policy of complete abandonment.

In that year part of the Hocking Canal was abandoned;

in 1888, all the Wabash and Erie; in 1894, the rest of

the Hocking. In 1896, practically all the Walhonding

was abandoned,⁷⁸ and by 1906 only the Ohio Canal and

the Miami and Erie were in operation.79 Since that time

the Miami and Erie has been entirely abandoned "for

transportation purposes",80 but water power is leased

yet at some points.

Why did the canal decline so as to be abandoned? The

reasons for its decline are in general the same as for

the decline of the other parts of the state system, but

some reasons apply especially to the Miami. In truth,

it can be said that the decline of the canal was occasioned

by the rise of the railroad,⁸¹ and especially by that of the

Mad River and Lake Erie Railroad. Clearly one ad-

vantage of the railroad over the canal as a means of

 

77 Page 6.

78 Report of State Engineer, New York, 1905, II, 1402.

79 Map showing navigable canals and streams in the United States as

supplement to Preliminary Report of Inland Waterways Commission,

(1908).

80 Letter of Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Oct.

31, 1924.

81 In 1835 there were no railroads in operation in Ohio; there were 400

miles of canal in operation. Supra, 5. In 1857 canal mileage was 849, while

railroad mileage in the state had stepped ahead with 2,834 miles. See

Annual Report of Ohio Commissioner of Statistics, 1857, 62.

• 18
 

110       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

transportation is the fact that it is open for business the

year around. The Miami Canal was frozen one winter

for 49 consecutive days. Another advantage of the rail-

road is the more frequent service furnished. This is of

prime importance in the shipping of such articles as

fruit. But the greatest advantage the railroad possesses

over the canal is the greater speed of the former. Canal

traffic down to 1890 showed speed of from 2 to 8 miles

an hour; while the railroads offered a freight speed of

12 to 30 miles an hour. Thus the railroad has greater

facilities for the rapid transportation of such articles as

fruit, fresh milk and other dairy products, vegetables,

etc.⁸²

Sometimes the canal in offering a lower rate than

did the railroad was only trying to offset the more fre-

quent service and faster time of the railway, and there-

by to secure a share of the traffic.⁸³ By 1852 at least

one canal in Ohio had been killed by the railroad com-

petition.⁸⁴ By that time the Cincinnati, Hamilton and

Dayton Railroad, the Mad River and Lake Erie Rail-

road and the Dayton and Michigan Railroad were in

cutting competition with the Miami Canal,⁸⁵ and by 1855

the Dayton and Piqua Railroad was promising further

rivalry to the canal.⁸⁶ In 1858 the net receipts of rail-

roads in Ohio were more than $5,000,000, showing a

 

⁸² James, 285-320.

83 Preliminary Report of Inland Waterways Commission, (1908), 125.

Several instances of railroad's buying over the property of the competing

canal, and letting canal go to ruin, are cited, 375-76.

⁸⁴ Ibid., 208. This was the Sandy and Beaver Canal, killed by the Pitts-

burgh, Ft. Wayne and Chicago Railroad, and by the Cleveland and Pitts-

burg Railroad.

85 Andrews, 359.

86 Annual Report of Secretary of State, 1855, map facing 364.

• 19
 

The Miami Canal.              111

 

thriving business and profit, while for the same year the

gross receipts of the Miami and Erie Canal were $4,000

less than the cost of operation.⁸⁷

The least reflection on the advantages the railroad

has over the canal causes one to wonder how the canal

could hold its own even so long as it did; and especially

interesting is it to recall that while many of its state-

neighbors went down in despair before 1895, the Miami

and Erie continued until into the twentieth century. It

did achieve success in developing western Ohio; but it

failed in its efforts to compete with the railroads.

 

RESULTS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CANAL

The creation of markets for inland products was of

great consequence to western Ohio. By 1866 cordwood,

hitherto valueless because unmarketable, was bringing

$3; and ship timber ranged from $10 to $20 a hundred

cubic feet. Such improvement encouraged farmers to

market their wood and timber and to open the hitherto

wooded area to agriculture;88 consequently, much busi-

ness came to the canal in handling the increasing farm

products. Surplus water power was leased to private

individuals for driving saw mills and flour mills estab-

lished along the route of the canal.⁸⁹ The Miami's flow

of commerce toward the Great Lakes contributed no-

ticeably to making Buffalo an important commercial

center, and New York City the commercial capital of

the United States.⁹⁰ This canal attracted private enter-

 

⁸⁷ Annual Report of Ohio Commissioner of Statistics, 1858, 74.

⁸⁸ Annual Report, Board of Public Works, in Ohio Executive Docu-

ments, Part II, 1866, 487.

^{89 Ib}id., 1867, 211-14.

90 Preliminary Report of Inland Waterways Commissions, (1908), 231.

• 20
 

112     Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

prise into the transportation field. The state began to

charter private canal companies and turnpike compa-

nies.⁹¹ The completion of this canal to Dayton in 1829

was followed by state authorization of thirteen lines of

railroad in the year 1832, the chief line being the Mad

River and Lake Erie Railroad, Dayton to Sandusky;

this line, running through pretty much the same area

as proposed canal extension north of Dayton was to

traverse, aimed to head off the Miami Canal as a lake-

ward carrier; to a great extent this objective was at-

tained. At the time, the longest railroad in the world

was only 136 miles, while the Mad River and Lake Erie

was to span a distance of 175 miles! In that the canal

stimulated railroad building, it contained the germ of

its own destruction.

Financial results of a serious nature were produced

by this canal. In providing for extending the canal

from Dayton to Defiance, the legislature embarked on a

course of public aid to communications which ultimately

cost the state more than $8,000,000, or twice the total

state debt in 1829. Ohio credit fell to a 2 1/2% discount

in New York.⁹² More borrowing meant heavier taxa-

tion; the hard pressed farmer, while given some relief

in the revaluation scheme of 1835, protested so loudly

that into the new constitution of 1851 was incorporated

a provision limiting the incurring of state debts to these

purposes only: certain deficiencies in revenue, handling

invasions or insurrections, and redeeming "outstanding

indebtedness" of the state. This constitution, ratified

 

91 Morris, 367-8.

92 Ibid., 372, 376.

• 21
 

The Miami Canal.             113

 

by popular referendum, echoes the popular reaction

against financial recklessness of the legislature.

Putting the interior into touch with markets, cre-

ating thereby an exchange of products and articles, and

contributing to the increasing volume of the trade

routes to the north and to the south are facts of prime

significance. Likewise is the economic lesson derived

from the railroad competition with this canal that

faster, more frequent, and better service will triumph

even at a higher cost to the consuming public.

Of political significance is the fact that the United

States came to the support of the canal only when it

had proved itself a going concern; that federal aid was

generous, and that this aid was given on conditions re-

markably suggestive of the twentieth century federal

subsidy policy.

Ohio experience in administrative management of

the canal reveals, in a day when administrative organi-

zation was relatively simple, the basic problem of re-

sponsibility, efficiency, and proper relationship in the

organization of administrative agencies. The financial

limitation imposed on the legislature in 1851 stands in

contrast to the position of popular trust, and chief

power accorded the legislative branch in the basic docu-

ment of 1803. That financial limitation is merely sug-

gestive of but all too typical of the reasons for, and the

extent to which, the legislative powers in the states lie

fettered in the prison of constitutional prohibitions.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. General Accounts:

Andrews, Israel D., Report on Colonial and Lake Trade,

(1852) 34, 354, 359.

Vol. XXXVI--8.

• 22
 

114       Ohio Arch. and Hist. Society Publications.

 

Mitchell's Compendium of Internal Improvements in the

United States, (1835), 28-32; 71-72.

Paxson, F. L., History of the American Frontier, 258-67.

Tanner, H. S., Canals and Railways in the United States,

(New York, 1840), 208-9.

B. Special Accounts:

Burr, David H., Map of Ohio in 1840.

Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, Letter,

dated October 31, 1924.

C. Periodicals:

James, Edmund J., The Canal and the Railway in Amer-

ican Economic Association Publications, V, (1890) 281-

324.

Morris, Charles R., Internal Improvements in Ohio 1825-

50 in American Historical Association Papers, III,

(1889), 351-379.

D. Documents:

1. United States.

Inland Waterways Commission, Preliminary Report,

1908, 125, 208, 230, 231.

Land Grants Made by Congress, (1908), 24.

U. S. Statutes at Large, 1824-35, 305-6.

2. State:

a. New York

State Engineer, Annual Report, 1905, II, 1402.

b. Ohio

1. Constitution, 1803 and 1851, Legislative ar-

ticles.

2. Executive Documents for

1866, Part II, 487

1867, 211-14

1888, 1086

3. Legislative Documents for 1842-3.

Doc. 3, 25, 34, 35.

Doc. 7, 10.

Doc. 6, 38-9.

1844-5, Doc. 20, 273.

1845-6, Doc. 14, 164.

1846-7, Doc. 31, 389; 398-99.

4. Legislative Journals

(a) House Journal for 1836-7, 668-75;

274-75.

• 23
 

The Miami Canal.                  115 (b)  Senate Journal for 1827-8, 170-174. 1828-9, 186-90; 196-98. 1829-30, 270-72. 5. Statutes Laws 1821-22, 31. 1824-25, 50-59. 1829-30, 16; 375-98. 1831-32, 17-18. 1838-39, 45-49. 1841-42, 72. 1842-43, 54-7. 1866-67, 330. 6.  Miscellaneous Commissioner of Statistics, Annual Report 1857, 62; 1858, 74. Secretary of State, Annual Report, 1855, 364. Index to Ohio Documents, note on 397. Reports and Messages to the General Assem- bly, 1834, 5.

• 24